I like the Barker and Vandermeer signings. U can never have enuff depth on the blue-line and considering we generally see alot of injuries back there, it's nice to have some NHL vets who can step in to play some games. They are obviously not going to solve our problems, but decent band-aids for the time being. Vandermeer seems like a good vet and Barker is just hitting his prime, so hopefully he can find his game that once made him a #3 overall pick. Not sure about Barker's style of play, but he has good size, so if he can be a steady d-man and be a bit of a physical presence, he'll be a good pickup to replace the departure of Rome. It is a bit of a concern that he has seemed to bounce around a bit around the league, but I think it's a good gamble for a guy to battle for the #5-#6 spot.

I don't have a problem with either signing. They are both just for depth. We of all teams should know the importance of defensive depth! Certainly nothing to get excited about but at the same time tiny cap hits, two way deals and one year contracts.

coco_canuck wrote:I can live with Vandermeer, Barker and Alberts in the short-term but if any of those guys have to play in the top 4 for an extended period....

You're talking about three guys who will be in the 7-10 range (with Connauton in that mix) on the depth chart. There isn't a team in the league that wouldn't be in trouble if three of their starting defensemen happened to go down with injury, and their #7 ended up playing top-4 minutes. If you expect MG to find seven serviceable top-4 defensemen, and fit them all under the cap...

At least now we have enough redundancy in our depth that we can sustain an run of injuries by spreading out the minutes. Having Alberts as #4 with a pairing like Vandermeer/Barker as #5-6 is bad... but not nearly as bad as it would be if our only #5-6 option was Sauve/Connauton.

Depth is a good thing, especially with a compressed schedule and no training camp. These signings add more depth in an area where we previously had a weakness. If all goes according to plan (yeah right), we won't have to play either of the new guys, and it would take a significant run of bad luck for us to require any of our depth to be thrust into a top-4 role.

... on a side note, am I the only one who's relieved that we won't have to hear a torrent of "If only we had signed Vandermeer instead of Barker!!!" comments, should that run of injuries occur?

Lloyd Braun wrote:... on a side note, am I the only one who's relieved that we won't have to hear a torrent of "If only we had signed Vandermeer instead of Barker!!!" comments, should that run of injuries occur?

dbr wrote:It is. I suspect it's even harder to get those players now that we have sufficient NHL depth, you have to wonder if earlier in Gillis' tenure he had offered jobs to guys like Aaron Rome and Tanner Glass without obvious holes towards the bottom of the Canucks depth chart, would those players have passed and gone to teams with fewer legitimate NHLers?

I'm sure it plays into it.

As for young D-men, it's important they play a lot of minutes and not sit around as a spare part with the big club. I'd much rather have Barker and Alberts with the big team than letting someone like Connauton hang around, even if he proves to be better than those two. You can always call a young player up and have him with the team for the stretch drive.

L loyd Braun wrote:If you expect MG to find seven serviceable top-4 defensemen, and fit them all under the cap...

That's why I said it would have to come via trade.

Basically what I want is a young D man who can slot in as the number 5 but is more than capable of playing in the top 4 because by next year, it's likely something has to give with Ballard either by trade or buy-out if it comes to that. Unless Ballard plays better and they're comfortable with him playing in the top 4...which, well...I guess we'll see.

Why Gillis wants to pay him $700K to play for the Wolves I'll probably never know...

Oh, come on, you know why! The guy used to have a bright future, then somehow lost track.Gillis is hoping he can somehow turn around and become the player he was supposed to be.Till then, he'll be playing with the wolves.

Hockey Widow wrote:tiny cap hits, two way deals and one year contracts.

The Barker contract is one-way.

$700K to play for the Wolves!

Craziness....

I`m fine with the Vandermeer contract.

I could care less about what Canucks management pays a guy to play in Chicago -- well, except that under the new CBA there are salary cap implications for stashing players who are more highly paid than Barker.

Rich teams have a few advantages. One is the ability to spend to the cap. The other is the ability to buy experienced depth beyond the cap by overpaying a guy to play in the minors.

So I'm fine with the Barker signing. He is young enough to turn in around -- particularly if the issues were due to injury or something psychological that can be overcome with the right environment. I don't expect it, and I think from the depth the team has assembled, Canucks management doesn't expect it. But it will be a happy turn of events if it occurs.

Hockey Widow wrote:tiny cap hits, two way deals and one year contracts.

So I'm fine with the Barker signing. He is young enough to turn in around -- particularly if the issues were due to injury or something psychological that can be overcome with the right environment. I don't expect it, and I think from the depth the team has assembled, Canucks management doesn't expect it. But it will be a happy turn of events if it occurs.

Exactly. It's a low risk signing with potential (but highly unlikely) upside. Yes, he got cut from an AHL team. Yes, he was horrible in Edmonton last year. But...this is a guy that was drafted third behind Ovechkin and Malkin and a few years ago put up 40 points in 68 games (48/82 pace). There's not a lot of guys out there that have that on their resume and are only 26 and are available for $700k. For sure - it was likely a blip on the radar caused by getting a ton of minutes on a high scoring team and there were undoubtedly holes in his game apparent even then that have ballooned in size over the past few years. But it's only $700k and if he really is the player that he's appeared to be during the last couple years then he won't play for the Canucks - or at least not for long.